This article argues that, unlike some exegetes (e.g. Francis Moloney), Thomas Torrance correctly interpreted Mark 16:19–20 in support of a theology of the ascended Christ's continuing prophetic activity. In the ministry of the Word, Christ remains present and at work witnessing to himself. This prophetic office, associated with and not to be separated from his kingly and priestly functions, is not to be played down. He is the primary agent forever actively involved in Christian proclamation.

In his sermons, Answer to Faustus a Manichean, and other works, Augustine insisted that belief in Christ's resurrection establishes the identity and defines the faith of Christians. In justifying resurrection belief, he appealed to evidence from (1) created nature and (2) human history, and to (3) the desires and experiences of those he addressed. From the perspective of creation, ‘the miracle’ of the world and all the wonders it contains (particularly the worldly pattern of ‘new life after death’) support Easter faith. Historically, Augustine argues from a visible effect (almost the whole of Roman society accepting the resurrection) to the only adequate cause of this phenomenon (Christ's victory over death). Finally, the human hunger for happiness, Augustine argues, finds its fulfilment only through sharing in Christ's resurrection – though in this context he does not forget the light provided by the Holy Spirit, through whom ‘with the eyes of the heart we behold’ the risen Christ (Sermon 263).

This article critically examines the views of Jacques Dupuis, Gavin D'Costa, and Francis Sullivan on the church's intercession for those of other living faiths or of no faith at all. After clarifying what the Scholastic terminology of “final” and “moral” causality means, it shows how 1 Timothy and Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy elucidate intercession for “others.” Here a rich tradition of philosophical-theological reflection on the efficacy of prayer can no longer be ignored. Finally, intercession for “others” is inspired by love for them, and brings the faithful to share in Christ's priestly ministry for the whole world. In these ways, the article aspires to open up new themes for the theology of religions.

In 1918, on the very day the First World War ended, Karl Barth (1886–1968) wrote of doing theology with the Bible in one hand and the newspapers in the other. The scriptures and the daily papers converge in presenting one real, if highly unpleasant, feature of our human existence: hatred.

Recent decades have seen a flood of books and articles dealing with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. At no time since the second and third centuries has the central affirmation of Christian faith won so much attention from theologians and exegetes. This renewed interest in the resurrection was pioneered by Karl Barth (1886–1968), whose Epistle to the Romans in its second edition of 1922 marks thereal beginning of twentiethcentury theology. To prevent this investigation of Barth's view of Christ's resurrection from becoming confused and confusing, it seems advisable to make use of a distinction between the earlier and the later Barth. His Anselm study (Fides Quaerens Intellectum) of 1931 forms the turning point. It would be inaccurate to maintain that Barth's later theology represents a total break with his work in the 1920's, but it is incontestable that certain important shifts take place.

In the introduction to his helpful edition of selected writings from Ernst Bloch, Hans Heinz Holz recognises that Christian theologians feel themselves drawn towards Bloch's philosophy, and have in fact ‘appropriated it (and obviously also his person, as the Festschrift for his eightieth birthday shows)’. The theologians in question are principally Jürgen Moltmann, J. B. Metz, W.-D. Marsch and Gerhard Sauter. Of these Moltmann and Metz were among the contributors to the Festschrift, Ernst Bloch Zu ehren. These theologians, Holz complains, by their ‘inadequate reception’ and ‘incorrect interpretation’ of Bloch's Marxist thought have ‘falsified’ his intention. In this article I want to consider that verdict, putting three questions. What is the particular form of Marxism that Bloch sets before us? How have these theologians found his thought relevant and helpful? In their use of Bloch do they in fact incorrectly interpret and falsify his intention? I am not concerned here to ask whether the account of Christianity put before us by Moltmann and the others is acceptable or not.